Mass. High Court: Facility Permitted to Use Electric Shock

Special Needs Answers legal update.At the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC) in Massachusetts, children and young adults in Grades 3 through 12 are part of the facility’s private day and residential school, which serves students with severe developmental disabilities and emotional and behavioral disorders such as autism. Following a recent ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the Center now stands as the only institution in the country that can continue to use electric shock devices on members of its student body.

At JRC, students with special needs who prove aggressive toward others or who attempt to cause themselves serious or life-threatening injury are subject to electric shock intervention. The facility’s highly controversial practice has long been the target of disability rights advocates who consider electric shock treatment an inhumane punishment. In 1987, the facility secured a consent decree to protect its use of electric shock as a treatment approach.

JRC’s electric shock therapy procedures came under fire again in 2012 in light of media attention surrounding a lawsuit related to JRC’s use of electric shock on a student. At that time, state agencies submitted a motion requesting that the court terminate the consent decree. The motion was denied in 2016, but an appeal was filed. (Meanwhile, the FDA issued a ban in 2020 on using electric shock to address aggressive behavior. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned it in 2021.)

In a 69-page opinion, issued September 7, 2023, the state’s top court specifically considered the consent decree and whether it should remain in place at JRC. It concluded that the lower court judge had not erred in 2016, leaving JRC the sole facility in the U.S. with permission to apply electric shock as a behavior intervention.

While electric shock treatments may cause physical pain, burns, psychological harm, along with other negative effects, the school as well as families of some of the children who attend the school say it is should continue to be used as a “treatment of last resort.”

The case, Justice Scott B. Kafker acknowledged, “involves a heart-wrenching issue: continue to protect a controversial practice … or pave the way for its prohibition at the risk of subjecting these vulnerable patients to a life of sedating and restraint, or extreme self-injury.”